You’ve not offered a single piece of evidence that the VA Tech helmet lab has received any funding from a helmet manufacturer. (Your “beliefs” are not evidence.)

Your version of “common sense” and “critical thought” betrays a complete failure to understand public universities and the research process.

Since you claim to not understand why I’m challenging you, I’ll make it as clear as possible: I hate bs. If you don’t want to be challenged, then don’t make entirely unsupported claims - especially on a cycling forum when we’re discussing a respected neutral organization that’s trying to help us make safer decisions.

You're correct. Non Profit is more accurately - "Not for Profit". It doesn't mean the business doesn't make money. It means it doesn't exist to make a profit. It exists to provide services and any money that is made beyond expenses (IOW "profit") is put back into services, salaries, infrastructure to support the services, or reasonable cash reserves - rather than to shareholders profits. Universities can do the same and often have "Centers" and such that are similar to stand alone entities and some of them generate income from their activities to keep themselves in business. I wouldn't be surprised if the helmet testing thing is set up that way.

Is there a major helmet manufacturer absent from their tests? All the brands I can think of are included.

It really doesn't matter whether or not they receive donations and money from the helmet industry. In itself there's nothing wrong with that. I don't really even care if that somehow prioritizes which products get reviewed first or next.

The crux of my issue with the entire setup is their testing itself, and I've laid out what issues I see with their methodology back in POST 25. Their test protocols are available to anyone. The fact that their test equipment lacks actual human characteristics is also obvious. What is unknown is whether their omitted characteristics matter to actual helmet safety. I can't prove that these factors matter, but intellectually I think they could. I also cannot find anybody that has provided any rationale or scientific support as to why those factors do not matter. So you can call my concerns BS if you like, but there's neither proof nor disproof that my concerns are relevant.

Here's a little exercise anyone can perform right now. Take 3 fingers, line them and push on your forehead about where a cycling helmet cage would be. Then move around -- see how you can move up/down/left or right, or in little circles. This simple phenomenon is not replicated by any test that I can determine.

So my claim is basically that I believe the VaTech's cycling helmet reviews have become the industry's de facto standard, but perhaps undeservedly so. The marketplace accepts their rankings because they're the only game in town. Their test platform could be inherently favoring MIPS (and alternatives such as the revolutionary Wavecel) results, and likely be a large contributor to MIPS taking off commercially. MIPS in itself, generally, adds cost, weight, and decreases ventilation vs helmet designs that don't include MIPS. I'd prefer there to be more substantiated evidence that these tradeoffs are definitely worth it for the real amount of increased safety. I do imagine that the reason these factors aren't tested is that it's prohibitive to do so -- requiring much more elaborate headform constructions, and if you even could get one of these made with a sliding exterior layer (like a scalp or with hair), that in testing these will wear out and be consumed fairly quickly -- being unusable for continued and multiple repetitive testing.

Partial lists linked below; I do realize there's some overlap between these though. I also realize that many of these are brands that the US market can't access from domestic sellers, but I'd still would like to see the tests. I think you're in Europe aren't you, so maybe more familiar with some of these brands.

Filtered1
Filtered2

Amazing what people will pay to think they look less like a dweeb!

but, but, but, a helmet is only good for 5 yrs, so make sure it's been discounted by more than 20% :innocent:

Maybe because e-bike riders tend to have a different average competence level than those who can power their own bike to 30mph…

Maybe because they're doing that speed in city traffic not in their imagination?

So in Darwin's survival game, of those that crash in accidents that will involve head trauma, we want the people with lesser abilities to have a better chance to survive? <grin>.

Welcome to BF!